borderlandsfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Accuracy
If the cone theory was true, then how could they have a circle on the scope demonstrating the movement of the bullets? At larger distances, there would be a higher area where the bullets could go if it was a cone. But the bullet is always within the circle, although the circle never gets larger or smaller. This means the bullets do not go in a cone, but in a cylinder. The Flying Fenrakk 00:00, February 9, 2010 (UTC) Point your gun at a wall while right next to it, and then walk backwards. As you travel backwards, the size of the wall on your screen decreases, and more of it is able to fit within the area of your aiming circle. Therefore, spread is proportional to the distance -- just like a cone's radius is proportional to its height at that point. Injekt 03:23, February 24, 2010 (UTC) I've got a question: With all the Accuracy bonuses for a weapon (I use Mordecai with focus, and lvl50 proficiency for revolvers) should a revolver with high acc (96 or so) get 100% accuracy on that gun?Speed Demon 16:05, July 14, 2010 (UTC)Speed Demon It is not possible to get the your accuracy to 100%. Bonuses affect the difference between your weapons accuracy and 100%, the difference. This means your weapon with 96% has a cone of 3.6°. With the formula in this article you get 3.6° / ( 1 + 0,25 (25% Focus) + 0,6 ( maybe a gunslinger mod) + 1,53 (lvl 50 prof)) = 3.6° / 3.38 = 1.065° and therefore an accuracy of 98.8%. You can get close to but can't reach 100% 10:23, September 19, 2010 (UTC) The Numbers, area and square The article notes that a rifle with an accuracy of 98% is twice as accurate as one with 96%. I think this should be four times, since the circle where the bullet can land has a diameter that is half as long, the area decreases by square. Furthermore it seems to me that the scope-zoom-factor should be taken into account. In that case I would expect 98% with 1.0x zoom to be as accurate as 96% with 2.0x zoom, and even then: 1.0x pistol-zoom is not as much as 1.0x sniper-zoom. Could some people comment on this, please? Furthermore, some screenshots illustrating the "Shot Deviation Ring" would be appreciated! -- Bacchuss 06:33, July 13, 2010 (UTC) Firearms are usually measured by angle of deviation (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minute_of_arc) and so 98 would be twice as accurate as 96. Scoped SMGs are also good for seeing the ring - part of the scope pattern will appear to be cut out. As for scopes, I'm not sure about snipers although for combat rifles/MGs the shot deviation ring also increases with the zoom and does not affect accuracy. 16:43, July 13, 2010 (UTC) : What you say differs considerably from the article, that speaks of a firing cone with a top angle that is directly related to a weapon's accuracy rating. That is different from your statement that only the distance from the center relates to accuracy (and direction of deviation is random). : I have experimented a bit with different scopes and the shot deviation ring yesterday and I have noticed that it indeed seems to be the edge of your firing cone and is directly related to accuracy. -- Bacchuss 06:23, July 14, 2010 (UTC) : Some more experimentation reveals: The apparant size of the ring does not seem to be influenced by zoom factor of the scope: if the ring of a 98.0% acc rifle with 1.0x zoom exactly covers the head of a distant human, a 98.0% acc rifle with 1.5x zoom has a ring covering exactly that same head. -- Bacchuss 07:49, July 23, 2010 (UTC) Fuzzy math The math on the page is confusing. It says that accuracy bonuses decrease the distance from 100.0 by X%. Following that postulate, if a 70.0 accuracy weapon gains +50% accuracy from proficiency, shouldn't the accuracy then go to 85.0 (50% of the distance from 70.0 to 100.0)? It says that it goes to 80.0. Furthermore, what if I have +100% accuracy for whatever reason (proficiency 50, say)? Does that mean that I have a 100.0 accuracy? Because my experience says "no." 03:15, August 13, 2010 (UTC) The firing cone is 100% minus the percent of accuracy your gun has, then times 9. 100-70=30 30*.9=27 The firing cone of the gun has a 27 degree angle. The way he got 80 was because, 100-80=20 20*.9=18 So a gun with an accuracy of 80% has a firing cone degree of 18 degrees, basicly if that gun were to be 50% less accurate it would be 18/2=9 18+9=27 So it would have a firing cone of 27 degrees. But the thing is, if a 80% accurate gun is 50% less accurate, it becomes 70% but if a 70% becomes 50% more accurate, it would be 85%, so I think that there is an error in this that should be fixed. KaltSoldat 04:04, September 2, 2010 (UTC) I think you got confused with the directions of the math. The way were a gun get 50% of accuracy from whatever source is correct, 70% with 50% accuracy bonus results in 80% accuracy (27° / ( 1 + 50%) = 27°/ 1.50 = 18°. 18°/90° = 0.2 or 20%, meaning an accuracy of 80%). But the other way around, a loss of 50% is different: from 80% acc 18° / (1 + (-50%)) = 18° / 0.5 = 18° * 2 = 36°. 36°/90° = 0.4 or 40%. So the accuracy loss of 50% for a 80% acc weapon results in an acc of 60%. Hope this helps. I got another question: do accuracy bonuses stack? I'm playing a hunter with pistol prof level 18 (acc bonus 56%) and I use a Gunslinger COM with 66% bonus acc. Does this result in 122% increased weapon accuracy? 09:57, September 19, 2010 (UTC) . Accuracy bonus with aiming Article says: "Aiming a weapon does not affect your weapon's base accuracy, unless it has a scope". But, I tested yesterday and found that aiming always increases your accuracy, even when a gun has no scope. And yes, even shotguns without a scope shoot a tighter pattern (10-15% less, so it's hard to see). More of it, I found that there is incorrect to talk about accuracy bonus with aiming, because what we have is a penalty for not aimed shots. It is especially visible with a sniper rifle shot unaimed - deviation of a bullet will be so huge, that even pistols with 70% accuracy can shoot more precise. So in fact accuracy attribute of a gun shows gun's accuracy for aimed shots (not sure if with a scope or without it - that needs to be tested). The amount of that penalty depends mostly on a type of a weapon, with sniper rifles having the biggest penalty (up to 10-15 times) and shotguns having the least (about 25%). Other weapons - such as pistols, SMG and rifles - have about 2-2.5 times bigger deviation of a bullet when shot unaimed, revolvers have about 3 times bigger (haven't tested launchers though...). Besides, penalty depends on some factors I couldn't find out. Maybe it's gun component parts... Also I shot two pistols of the same accuracy, and one with a scope was actually about 25% more precise with aimed shots than another, that have no scope. I suppose this will be true for all other types of weapon, but can't say for sure. So... Could anyone please update an article with this info? I'm not good in English. -- 04:00, August 25, 2010 (UTC) Does Accuracy stack? Let's say I have a 98% accurate sniper rifle, my sniper proficiency adds 50% accuracy and my class mod adds 25%. Would the deviation ring be reduced by 50%, then by 25%; or by 75%? 04:31, January 2, 2011 (UTC) Complete Re-write I forgot to log on, but I did a complete rewrite of the article. Since I wrote the previous page, and it contained only my own original research, I do not think it was necessary to ask for consensus. I of course do not claim ownership, and I think a re-read is necessary. Happypal 10:03, January 31, 2011 (UTC) Accuracy from proficiency Weapon proficiency page says that accuracy gained from proficiency "Decreases how far shots deviate from the center of the weapon's cross-hairs." Accuracy article says that accuracy gained from proficiency "actually refers to the sway of the gun while looking down the sights". So which one is it? I find it hard to believe it's sway reduction since some weapons don't have sway(SMGs and shotguns for example). 06:23, April 25, 2011 (UTC) :It was bad writting on my part. BTW, ALL weapons have sway, its just not visible most of the time on those weapons. When they have a scope though, sometimes they'll sway a little. 08:25, April 25, 2011 (UTC) ::So... which one is it? The proficiency page still says its own thing. And did anyone test it or something? I've checked some revolver vids and they seem to have as much sway at high proficiency levels as they do with no proficiency at all. 16:19, April 25, 2011 (UTC) Section "Bottom Line" 3-2 "When looking down a weapon's sights, recoil reduction has virtually no effect. ..." I do not think this is accurate at least when it comes to full auto combat rifles. I play a soldier with 50 combat rifle proficiency. Combat rifles with high recoil reduction "climb up" SIGNIFICANTLY less than weapons with low recoil reduction. I am testing to see how accuracy plays into this as well. 17:41, April 23, 2012 (UTC) Kharnellius :I originally wrote that when I first wrote the article about a year and a half ago, when I was still fresh with borderlands. Having played as A LOT as a Heavy Gunner with CRs since then, I can agree. That said, we are usually talking about the difference between a stockless Stomper with "-50% Recoil Reduction" and a Cobra with "+150% Recoil Reduction". I'll reword it to be more accurate. :As far as I can tell, a weapon's actual accuracy as impact on recoil. Something very interesting to note that I wanted to add is that a stock will not only reduce the recoil of a gun, but also increase that gun's "Accuracy Regen Rate", or in mayman's terms "Stabalizes Faster". I'll touch on the recoil thing, and see tomorrow about talking about stocks. happypal (talk • ) 20:51, April 23, 2012 (UTC) Borderlands 2 Some things definitely seem different now. Scope sway doesn't seem to drop to zero anymore for sniper rifles; on the other hand, sniper rifles seem way more accurate when scoped now. In BL1 a sniper rifle with accuracy < 96 was completely unacceptable; now it seems like you can just crank out the headshots with even just a 94. --Evil4Zerggin (talk) 15:53, September 19, 2012 (UTC) Funny that no one has really done much in terms of investigating what the differences in BL2 are, but I've done at least a little bit of that myself lately. I do know for sure now that in BL2, skill-based accuracy boosts (like with Zer0's Precisi0n skill or the on-fire bonuses from Krieg's Fire Fiend skill) improve both minimum and maximum accuracy, while also increasing the accuracy regeneration rate. I've tested this with several different weapons from each manufacturer. The interesting thing with Hyperion guns is that the increased accuracy regeneration rate actually causes those weapons to return to maximum accuracy faster, so although your accuracy is still improved with those guns in general, it helps to have a higher rate of fire to ensure that you don't start returning to max accuracy sooner. This is especially evident when using Hyperion sniper rifles, which lose accuracy very quickly while firing from the hip. That weird aspect of Hyperion guns actually helps to explain why Salvador's Steady as She Goes skill can have a negative effect with that manufacturer. Rather than being a straight-up accuracy boost across the board like with Precisi0n or other accuracy boosters, the accuracy increase here seems to function strictly as an "immediate" accuracy regen, moving the weapon back to its starting accuracy. As a result, most weapons have a sudden accuracy regen that reduces the reticule size back toward minimum accuracy, whereas Hyperion guns will actually move toward max accuracy (just as they do with accuracy regeneration normally). This also explains why constantly getting accuracy increase procs with Steady as She Goes doesn't actually appear to improve Salvador's minimum/maximum accuracy over time as one might expect with repeated accuracy improvements during a particularly long Gunzerking session. I may take it upon myself soon to go ahead and update the pages for these three skills, though I can't even imagine trying to go in and format the main accuracy page, especially since it appears that BL2 accuracy and BL1 accuracy have some differences. BucklingSwashes (talk) 21:45, June 7, 2013 (UTC)